Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Jodi Arias Trial


  • Please log in to reply
836 replies to this topic

#16    regi

regi

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:01 PM

View PostYamato, on 13 February 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

Guilty, but guilty of what?   Her proven lying and resulting logical conspiracy doesn't prove stabbing, shooting, slicing or murdering.

Shouldn't the question be "why would she lie?"

Re: the rest of your comment, the primary decision of the jury will be whether or not the murder was committed in self defense. If they find that it was not, then their decision will then be whether or not the murder was premeditated.

Edited by regi, 13 February 2013 - 12:55 PM.


#17    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,480 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:04 PM

View PostCrimsonKing, on 13 February 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

Uhhh hmmm......The last sentence says she stated that she killed alexander.....Think that is admiting to stabbing,shooting,slicing,and murdering....No?
She's not reliable.  I know the temptation is great to believe the most damning of her three stories and provide the best case for the prosecution, but picking which story we want to believe just might let a killer go free.  I don't feel comfortable convicting and punishing someone just for what they've said, on a multiple-choice prosecution where simply pick one because we feel like it.   Changing her story as if she was the sole assailant isn't proof that she murdered anyone.  It can just as easily be evidence that she's hiding something to protect the real killer.   You might not care about such care in this case, but if I was on the jury with you, believe me you'd have to.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#18    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,480 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:09 PM

View Postregi, on 13 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Shouldn't the question be "why would she lie?"

Re: the rest of your comment, the primary decision of the jury will be whether or not the murder committed in self defense. If they find that it was not, then their decision will then be whether or not the murder was premeditated.
Yes that should be the question and the answer should be forthcoming before we all scream "Guilty!!!"

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#19    wolfknight

wolfknight

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA Kentucky

  • There is nothing to Fear, but fear itself

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:20 PM

Then she had help. Who or Whom is she covering for? Is she willing to go to prison for the rest of her life for covering for someone? She has told so many lies in the case no one is going to believe her.


#20    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,480 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:59 PM

This is a death penalty case so there's plenty of room to plea bargain.   They can take death off the table at the least, if she's willing to finger anyone else with a role in the murder.

Putting all the pieces together I'll paint a picture of what I see here.  I see evidence of a BDSM-style sexual relationship with Jodi clearly the submissive.   She wanted to please him in the hopes of nurturing the relationship, and went so far down his twisted sexual road that when she realized she had failed to win his love, she snapped and brutally killed him.  In her own head, I think she was defending herself though it was psychological.  Some women will do a lot for love, and I think this one was willing to play his deviant games, change her religion, and when she realized that all she was was a hole to come home to, she couldn't mentally handle it and flipped out.

Self defense is extremely hard to believe based on the injuries.   The injuries tell me she was extremely emotionally distraught.  The prosecution's jealous rage is reasonable.   Some people are capable of being soft and calm in demeanor and withstand a lot of shame, hurt, fear, self-abuse, subjugation/submission and when some psychological limit is reached they explode like a volcano.  I think that kind of circumstance might explain Jodi Arias.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#21    regi

regi

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:27 PM

View PostYamato, on 13 February 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Yes that should be the question and the answer should be forthcoming before we all scream "Guilty!!!"


My opinions aren't based on ANYTHING Arias has said- indeed, she's not credible, but regardless of what Arias has EVER said, my opinions are based on the evidence that's been presented at the trial.

Since the case is on-going, I've decided not to comment further.

Edited by regi, 13 February 2013 - 01:28 PM.


#22    Iron_Lotus

Iron_Lotus

    Hermit

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,604 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • I'll scream for you in whispers, because I always hated being too loud.

Posted 13 February 2013 - 04:16 PM

just some things that should be pointed out

drives 90 miles away to rent a car and tells the agent she doesn't want the red car and lies and says she is just going to use the car in town yet puts 2800 miles on it (fyi red cars typically stand out more)  oh and shes blonde when she rents the car, a receipt is in evidence that she purchase hair dye in a dark brown color and is a brunette when she comes to Travis' home.  Admits that neighbors and roommates recognize her as a bleach blonde. Keeps receipts except for the time she is in Arizona.
No contact evidence entered that Travis was ever aware she was coming to his home. Turns cell phone off and takes out battery while she is in the state of Arizona coming to his home and leaving the state of AZ to go on and hump another guy hours later.
The last of May Travis writes to her he is not coming to see her afterall. Mysterious 'burglary' May 28th in the home where she is living and a .25 caliber pistol is stolen but other valuable firearms are left behind and other collectables as well. Travis Alexander was shot in the head with a .25 caliber gun also known to slash tires of TA and his girlfriend which means she carries a knife. oh and she leaves voicemails and diary entries after she knows he is dead, indicating that he is still alive.

To me shes a psycho b**** who after travis wanted nothing more to do with her she made the decision to viciously murder him. It's obviously premeditated there is no self defense and the fact that she changed her story three times into 3 completely different stories shows me she is nothing more than a liar and a murderer. she deserves the death penalty but unfortunatly since shes a woman that will be hard to get done although the prosecutor has put a woman on death row before.

Edited by Iron_Lotus, 13 February 2013 - 04:19 PM.


#23    CrimsonKing

CrimsonKing

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,355 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DarkSide of TheMoon

  • "It does not require a majority to prevail,but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds" Sam Adams

Posted 13 February 2013 - 04:38 PM

View PostYamato, on 13 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

She's not reliable.  I know the temptation is great to believe the most damning of her three stories and provide the best case for the prosecution, but picking which story we want to believe just might let a killer go free.  I don't feel comfortable convicting and punishing someone just for what they've said, on a multiple-choice prosecution where simply pick one because we feel like it.   Changing her story as if she was the sole assailant isn't proof that she murdered anyone.  It can just as easily be evidence that she's hiding something to protect the real killer.   You might not care about such care in this case, but if I was on the jury with you, believe me you'd have to.

And believe me you would have to see my point that this isnt some "innocent little woman" this is one psychotic wacko!

"If it is not advantageous,do not move.If objectives can not be attained,do not employ the army.Unless endangered do not engage in warfare.The ruler cannot mobilize the army out of personal anger.The general can not engage in battle because of personal frustration.When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop.Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life." Sun-Tzu

#24    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,480 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:15 PM

View PostIron_Lotus, on 13 February 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

To me shes a psycho b****...

View PostCrimsonKing, on 13 February 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

And believe me you would have to see my point that this isnt some "innocent little woman" this is one psychotic wacko!
So you're playing the insanity defense.   Very clever!

I don't think she's innocent.  I just think that juries are guilty of wrongfully killing people when they mete out life and death, and if she truly is psychotic she might not even know what happened.   I know it's easy to deny that as a possibility in our rush to judgment but that's what psychotic means.   People lose touch with reality and fall into their own reality in their own mind.   The 3rd story she landed on can be as true to her as her 1st or 2nd.   A battery of polygraphs would be relevant to separating the lies from the truths, as well as determining if she even knows the difference anymore.   I would expect inconsistent results in a truly psychotic individual, and if the deal was to proceed with death as Iron Lotus indicated above, it wouldn't happen with me on the jury.   We're nowhere close to passing judgment either way yet.  Psychological evaluations would also be highly relevant to my determination.

I would feel uncomfortable serving with any juror whose mind was already made up, and already hedging her chances of being put to death based on mere court precedent regarding convicted women.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#25    Iron_Lotus

Iron_Lotus

    Hermit

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,604 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

  • I'll scream for you in whispers, because I always hated being too loud.

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:29 PM

View PostYamato, on 13 February 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

So you're playing the insanity defense.   Very clever!

I don't think she's innocent.  I just think that juries are guilty of wrongfully killing people when they mete out life and death, and if she truly is psychotic she might not even know what happened.   I know it's easy to deny that as a possibility in our rush to judgment but that's what psychotic means.   People lose touch with reality and fall into their own reality in their own mind.   The 3rd story she landed on can be as true to her as her 1st or 2nd.   A battery of polygraphs would be relevant to separating the lies from the truths, as well as determining if she even knows the difference anymore.   I would expect inconsistent results in a truly psychotic individual, and if the deal was to proceed with death as Iron Lotus indicated above, it wouldn't happen with me on the jury.   We're nowhere close to passing judgment either way yet.  Psychological evaluations would also be highly relevant to my determination.

I would feel uncomfortable serving with any juror whose mind was already made up, and already hedging her chances of being put to death based on mere court precedent regarding convicted women.

no i think shes perfectly sane shes just a ****ed up individual, you know like the psycho b**** at a club your friend says to stay away from, that kinda psycho b****. the insanity defense wouldn't work because its obviously premeditated. she is a cold hearted murderer and thats that.


#26    supervike

supervike

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,491 posts
  • Joined:16 May 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2013 - 01:15 AM

I think if she wasn't a pretty little hottie, and just some random middle aged woman, we wouldn't know a word about this whole story.

While the case is interesting, what makes this case any more or less 'media worthy' than the other murders that have happened in the past couple of years?


#27    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,480 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:49 AM

View Postsupervike, on 14 February 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

I think if she wasn't a pretty little hottie, and just some random middle aged woman, we wouldn't know a word about this whole story.

While the case is interesting, what makes this case any more or less 'media worthy' than the other murders that have happened in the past couple of years?
That's a great point.   Nancy Grace has been struggling to find someone this controversial and cute for years now.  I suspect she'll run this case into the ground too, just like she did with the Casey Anthony trial.

It's like how Captain Paul Watson successfully exploits the four fundamentals of a good media story (sex, scandal, celebrity, violence) to get his mission the press coverage it does.   If you can come up with more than one of those four elements, you have yourself a story the media will actually pay attention to.   But have all four of those elements, and you have yourself a story that just won't go away.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#28    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,324 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's histories.

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:56 AM

View Postsupervike, on 14 February 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

I think if she wasn't a pretty little hottie, and just some random middle aged woman, we wouldn't know a word about this whole story.

While the case is interesting, what makes this case any more or less 'media worthy' than the other murders that have happened in the past couple of years?

It might be because the genders are reversed. Look at the Lacy and Stacy Peterson homicides. BTW, isn't is strange how similar their names are? The same thing holds true for the two Florida homicides (Anthony, the Vicodin chick) that took place at the same time. It's like some kind of strange crime synchronicity. Back to your question, it seems like the cable programs obsess over the same cases for months, like they meet to decide which few crime stories they'll run into the ground for the next couple to few months. They ignore dozens of other crimes. I hope that makes sense!

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#29    regi

regi

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:17 PM

View Postregi, on 13 February 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

My opinions aren't based on ANYTHING Arias has said- indeed, she's not credible, but regardless of what Arias has EVER said, my opinions are based on the evidence that's been presented at the trial.

Since the case is on-going, I've decided not to comment further.

I think I should explain why I said that. It's not because I think it's wrong to have already formed an opinion... or that I think it's wrong to state an already formed opinion...or because I'm waiting to see what the defense presents- it's none of those.
It's simply because my interest is in discussing what is there, not what isn't.
Eventually, the defense will enter it's evidence, and then there will be no room for speculation.

The defense has yet to present it's case, but my opinion's strong. Some cases are no-brainers, and to me, this is one of those cases, but even so, I believe I could have been a reasonable juror.
(I would imagine that if I were on this jury right now, I'd be wondering if/when they're gonna present any credible evidence.)


#30    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,480 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 February 2013 - 10:14 AM

View Postregi, on 14 February 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

I think I should explain why I said that. It's not because I think it's wrong to have already formed an opinion... or that I think it's wrong to state an already formed opinion...or because I'm waiting to see what the defense presents- it's none of those.
It's simply because my interest is in discussing what is there, not what isn't.
Eventually, the defense will enter it's evidence, and then there will be no room for speculation.

The defense has yet to present it's case, but my opinion's strong. Some cases are no-brainers, and to me, this is one of those cases, but even so, I believe I could have been a reasonable juror.
(I would imagine that if I were on this jury right now, I'd be wondering if/when they're gonna present any credible evidence.)
Remember though that the defense is under no obligation to present any evidence at all.  All they have to do is create a reasonable doubt in the evidence the prosecution provides.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users